On an interview with Assange on AJE, after the incident where he stormed out of a CNN interview. He said he was there to talk about the uncovered secrets and would only come on the show if they talked about that. The CNN reporter didn’t let up about the personal alligations, then he walked off. He said, she later called him to apologise and that she had been told by her seniors from on high to keep asking about the personal alligations and not mention any wikileak revelations or lose her job.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:46 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21654

That may be true, but no one needs to threaten our jobs in order for us to keep talking about his alleged personal indiscretions.

"And again, I ask, what's that got to do with the price of rice in China?"

Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:04 pm

BandiniWIZARD APPRENTICE

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 4669
Location: jerk city

Mr Jenkins wrote: He said, she later called him to apologise and that she had been told by her seniors from on high to keep asking about the personal alligations and not mention any wikileak revelations or lose her job.

Can you link to this interview? If that was really Assange's account, I would bet on him being a liar. It sounds too absurd.

crash wrote: sorry, i was assuming the people who read this forum were smart enough to to make the distinction between apparent creepiness of assange's personal life and the validity of wikileaks' mission.

edit: your argument might have some weight if i was a news anchor. any news organization that is spending time reporting on the legal proceedings while ignoring the substance of the leaks is participating in the smear campaign. but this isn't a news network. it's a forum where people discuss current events, hip hop, and youtube videos. there's a whole thread dedicated to a line in a lil wayne track for christ's sake.

First, off, this isn't the same old tired line.

For one, I now know how to spell whisper.

The great thing about whisper campaigns is you don't have to be some muckety muck news anchor to spread them. We're in the day and age of the blogosphere.

Did you ever stop to think for a second why some gossip site might have the 'exclusive' on a story like that? It's been a few days and still noone has picked up on it, and you're still saying words to back it up like 'apparently'.

That's not apparent.

Here's the other difference to me these days.

I could give a fuck and I'm not going to argue back and forth. I don't have time, I'm too busy in the laboratory.

Keep on rubbernecking on the freeway at the scene of the dildo truck's spill.

Sage Francis wrote: That may be true, but no one needs to threaten our jobs in order for us to keep talking about his alleged personal indiscretions.

"And again, I ask, what's that got to do with the price of rice in China?"

Outside of the mainstream media (and most news-dedicated media sites/programs), what makes you think the conversation has gotten derailed? Do you, in your group of friends/etc, still discuss the leaks and what information was provided in them? If you're relying on this thread to be the only place where you discuss, or observe, WikiLeaks and the last cable releases, then you should try and bring the conversation back to where you would like it to be in order to be involved. Otherwise, you're contributing just as much to the "derailment" of the discussion.

I'm not surprised at all that the conversation has been derailed on these news sites/programs. Are you? We're living in an age where the "news" moves from one "story" to another without really caring much about relevancy or importance. I mean... How long did the Tiger Woods shit dominate the mainstream media? However, as crash pointed out, none of us are news anchors. We can all have multiple conversations about a variety of topics of equal importance (to us, to the world). Just because the current conversation in this thread is about the allegations made against Assange doesn't mean it's the only thing any of us are talking about in respects to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Also, as crash pointed out, talking about the allegations made against Assange in no way discredits the leaks or their importance. Unless, of course, you personally allow these allegations (and the discussions about them) to do so.

In direct relation to this conversation, it seems that we're discussing how some people who think Assange is a hero are casually dismissing these charges as false just because they idolize him for what he's made possible through WikiLeaks, and I, for one, think this line of thinking is fucking stupid. And I think it's also directly related to these individuals' own needs to believe whole-heartedly that their new favorite anti-Imperialist superstar can do no wrong because, in their minds, it will tarnish his work. Being capable of discerning the difference between Julian Assange (and his possible "rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion" allegations) and WikiLeaks, it seems kind of silly to defend the recent (and past) leaks as a tangent related to Julian Assange's character. He, the individual, can be a rapist (or anything else, related or not related to criminal activities) and it won't (or, at least, shouldn't) reflect upon what WikiLeaks has done with their resources. This is the distinction that I feel like people are failing to make, and we've reduced ourselves to trying to correct these opinions that, because WikiLeaks has done something good, it's founder (a singular human being, not the sole representation of the organization itself) can't possibly be guilty in regards to the allegations brought against him.

Like I said. I think casually dismissing the allegations against him because you're happy about what WikiLeaks has released is stupid. However, there's only so many times you can say "There's no way of proving whether he is or isn't guilty, and declaring his absolute innocence or absolute guilt without knowing all of the details of the allegations is ignorant" before the discussion gets stale. I think there'd be a common consensus among the members of this forum that we'd like to discuss the actual leaks opposed to Julian Assange, but I'd only go that route once kids stop talking about how these allegations are bullshit when they don't know one way or the other as to what the truth is. Until then, I'll continue pointing out that his probability of innocence is equal to his probability of guilt, and until more reliable details are brought forward, we don't really know our asses from our elbows on the matter.

Trying to steer the conversation back toward the actual leaks, I was recently faced with the idea that these leaks could possibly all just be made up. Not saying that they are, but why are we all so quick to believe every word in them? Is there any way to validate the information provided, or are we just accepting it based on the fact we want to believe that there's someone "looking out for us"? How much could be true, and how much could be false? Is there any way of knowing with 100% certainty that the information provided is reliable, and that the conclusions we're jumping to aren't conclusion someone else means for us to jump to? I would love to believe that everything leaked thus far has been 100% true, but after being posed with the reality that we (or at least I) don't know for certain, I think these have become important questions to ask. And I pose them to everyone. Is there any way at all of proving the validity of the leaked information? If there isn't, then perhaps this is why the smear campaign is working so well, as Sage put it. If we're going to talk about what does or doesn't discredit WikiLeaks the organization, I think these are far more important questions than discussing whether Assange is a creep and possible sex offender or not.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:56 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21654

See Arghhhh,

"Outside of the mainstream media (and most news-dedicated media sites/programs), what makes you think the conversation has gotten derailed?"

Because it's what we're talking about on this forum, it's what I see people from all over the globe on twitter talking about, and it's what I see the news discussing on TV.

"you're contributing just as much to the 'derailment' of the discussion."

I'm commenting on it. As I said, I sat this out for a couple weeks before saying anything at all because I really didn't care to discuss Assange's personal sex life. I simply don't care about it.

"I'm not surprised at all that the conversation has been derailed on these news sites/programs. Are you?"

OK, so you're acknowledging that the conversation *was* derailed? Well, yes...I'm surprised the general public can't see a cheap smear campaign for what it is. I'm also surprised that clever Diet Dr. Pepper commercials increase sales for Dr. Diet Pepper.

"talking about the allegations made against Assange in no way discredits the leaks or their importance."

I believe that. Maybe you believe that. But the fact remains that this is a pretty successful smear campaign that has derailed the public narrative as people get clouded with accusations of sexual deviance from that 'bad bad man who has threatened national security with his badness and nastiness and did you hear what that rapist said to a 19 year old in an email?' It's proper psychological warfare and, yes, I am surprised that these tricks work in 2010. I'm pointing it out as I survey the social landscape.

"In direct relation to this conversation, it seems that we're discussing how some people who think Assange is a hero are casually dismissing these charges as false just because they idolize him for what he's made possible through WikiLeaks"

I'm not saying the charges are false. However, in the grand scheme of things, I'm saying that they don't matter. Does that mean that I'm a rape apologist? I don't think so, but I do see people being called that when they try to look beyond the allegations. Unless it has something to do with the information he has obtained and released to the public about our 'leaders', his personal life is of no concern to me.

"He, the individual, can be a rapist (or anything else, related or not related to criminal activities) and it won't (or, at least, shouldn't) reflect upon what WikiLeaks has done with their resources."

OK, so...we don't disagree.

"We've reduced ourselves to trying to correct these opinions that, because WikiLeaks has done something good, it's founder (a singular human being, not the sole representation of the organization itself) can't possibly be guilty in regards to the allegations brought against him."

I, for one, am not saying that these allegations aren't possible. But they certainly look suspicious in light of all that has happened since the leaks went public. And they still don't matter to me, yet, here we are...talking about it. I actually feel like we need to use this as an opportunity to address this issue in full; focus on it, make sense of it, and move beyond it if possible. That way we can hopefully prevent anything like this happening in the future.

"How much could be true, and how much could be false? Is there any way of knowing with 100% certainty that the information provided is reliable, and that the conclusions we're jumping to aren't conclusion someone else means for us to jump to?"

Great question. One that is certainly worth considering. However, it is kind of funny watching the nations apologize to one another for what was said in the wires that were leaked. It's NOT funny to see that a person has been put under torturous conditions because of the leaks. Thus far it looks like everything that's been released is true.

"I think these are far more important questions than discussing whether Assange is a creep and possible sex offender or not."

And again, we agree. I'm not even sure why you wrote so much in your post. I thought you'd be more of a contrarian but we're pretty much on the same page.

Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:39 am

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

Thanks for the response. Wasn't meaning to seem as though I was addressing you throughout, and don't know if you took it that way, but the discussion is circling back to a more productive area.

Sage Francis wrote:
I'm not saying the charges are false. However, in the grand scheme of things, I'm saying that they don't matter. Does that mean that I'm a rape apologist? I don't think so, but I do see people being called that when they try to look beyond the allegations. Unless it has something to do with the information he has obtained and released to the public about our 'leaders', his personal life is of no concern to me.

There's not much for me to disagree with in what you've said. There wasn't much to disagree with to begin with. I started with what you provided and moved through my own train of thought to where I wanted to take the conversation. This segment quoted above says nothing I disagree with. His personal life hardly concerns anyone but him, the women making the allegations, the police and anyone he wishes to involve directly in his personal life. However, I've seen plenty of people immediately dismiss the allegations as false as though they know for a fact that what has been alleged couldn't possibly have happened. That's the only area of his personal life that I've wished to get into, and that's just to denounce this flawed logic that people seem to be carrying with them in regards to their new anti-Imperialist superstar. I agree that there's no way of knowing whether he did or did not do what is being claimed, which is the point where the conversation about his personal life needs to stop. However, when I continue to see and hear people talking about how he's undoubtedly innocent, I feel a tug in my gut to respond and bring the conversation back to a factual area. And the fact is we don't know what the truth could be, and making claims one way or the other is ignorant.

I don't think you're a rape apologist, or anyone else who wants to acknowledge that he might or might not have done what's being alleged and move back to the much more important conversation.

You're absolutely right that, in the grand scheme, these charges don't matter at all. Especially not in connection to WikiLeaks. I feel like this is the point that people have been trying to make in this thread when discussing Julian Assange with people who seem to want to declare his innocence based on the leaks from his organization. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If nothing else, it's the only reason I've bothered with joining in with a few conversations about Assange.

Are the allegations suspicious based on the current circumstances? Absolutely. Is Julian Assange the first person to be wanted by InterPol in relation to sex offenses? No. Is the way they are treating Bradley Manning horrible? Absolutely, especially when he should be innocent until proven guilty. I've yet to see solid evidence to prove he was the one who gave WikiLeaks everything they've been leaking. The only thing I've heard in regard to evidence against him is that he supposedly blabbed to a known hacker about what he did, and said hacker turned him in. But, again, the facts are extremely limited. Do nations apologizing for these leaked cables mean that everything in them is true? Not at all. Does it lend credibility to the leaks? Yes.

Is there anything you were looking to discuss specifically, or was your comment on the social landscape only an observation of the absurdity of the course of the conversation and a show of desire for it to move back to the leaks?

Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:03 am

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

Dan Shay wrote: The great thing about whisper campaigns is you don't have to be some muckety muck news anchor to spread them. We're in the day and age of the blogosphere.

this "whisper" campaign nonsense has always bugged me. it stifles conversation and promotes self-censorship. it reminds me of the hawks that tell you speaking out against the war emboldens our enemy. both are based on the idea that you could be aiding the enemy and not even know it, so watch what you say.

not to say that discussing the details of assange's sex life is as important as protesting war, but i chafe at the idea that i shouldn't discuss a topic in a public setting because it might result in the dissemination of information that hurts the "good guys".

funny thing is, i've posted plenty of links in this tread, many about the actual leaks themselves. the only link that got people really going is the one that labeled assange a creep - and the discussion wasn't so much whether he was a creep but whether it was appropriate to discuss his creepiness in the first place.

Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:31 am

zeem

Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 3885
Location: elsewhere

The Cables released so far aren't juicy enough.

I mean, they reveal the personality of our world governments, but I'd bet most people on this forum already knew that.

Give me a bank scandal or something that US law can sink it's teeth into.

Assange is being focussed on, because he's talking more than he's leaking.

Quote: AMY GOODMAN: The case against Assange has sparked international controversy, as well as controversy within the feminist community. We’re joined by two women right now. Jaclyn Friedman is executive director of Women, Action, & the Media and the editor of the anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. She’s joining us from Boston. Naomi Wolf is a social critic, author of seven books, including The Beauty Myth, The End of America. She’s joining us here in New York.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Jaclyn Friedman, as this information comes out, why don’t you talk about your thoughts on the—we can’t even say charges against Julian Assange, because he has not yet been charged.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: We can say allegations. Certainly these women are alleging a crime.

What I want to say is that these are—the details, certainly, have become more clear since that unauthorized leak, but we’ve known those basic facts for weeks, that the allegations—in fact, we’ve known them since August, that the allegations were that he held one woman down, that he raped another in her sleep. These allegations have been out there. The Guardian has been reporting them.

Rape is a very serious crime, and it’s also one of the most underreported crimes across the globe. And one of the reasons is because every time the issue comes up in the media, people come out of the woodwork to blame the victims and to minimize the crime. And unfortunately, when we see someone who is a progressive hero, like Assange is, those critics, those people who are doing that minimization and that victim blaming often come from the left, as well as the right. And we’ve seen that across the board. Unfortunately, with—Naomi Wolf has participated in that, as well as Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck—of course, plenty of people on the right are participating, as well.

And the result of that is not only that these women are receiving death threats, they are in hiding—one of them has gone to Palestine, because she couldn’t feel safe in Sweden anymore—but the even more important result of that, when we perpetuate rape myths in the media—and this is not just my opinion, this has been documented by social research—is that victims, nameless victims, victims who have been harmed by people who are not famous, become much more reluctant to take their experiences seriously, to report those experiences. The system, the justice system that’s supposed to work for those victims—the cops, the juries, the prosecutors, the judges—they become much more reluctant to take these allegations seriously when they are reported. And men become less likely to identify their own behavior as sexually violent. And the result of all of that is that rapists go free.

And what we know about that is, the majority of rapists are repeat rapists. So, the result of perpetuating these rape myths in the mass media is that we literally are creating more rape in the world. And that’s my main concern about the way these allegations have been discussed so far, is that it’s doing real harm to real women around the world who have nothing to do with this case.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Wolf, your response?

NAOMI WOLF: Thank you. Well, Jaclyn, let me say that I’m very, very offended that you’re suggesting that I’m blaming the victim. In fact, it’s because of my 23 years of supporting rape victims, working in rape crisis centers, traveling around the world, to report more than any journalist I know, which, in a way, I’ve been very blessed to have had the chance to do so, from Sierra Leone to Bosnia to Ireland to the United Kingdom, interviewing people who support rape victims and work with the legal system—it’s because of that that I’m raising my voice about these very ambiguous and corrupt allegations.

First of all, let me just correct you. And Jaclyn, these—The Guardian account, which is based on leaked original documents, doesn’t say that he had sex with either of these women without the consent. The reason I’m hearing from rape victims across the world who are emailing me, saying, "I’m a rape victim. Thank you for standing up to put these charges in context," is that this is the only case I’ve ever seen in 23 years of supporting rape victims which is based on multiple instances of consent.

If you read these allegations, he took off Miss A’s clothes too quickly for her comfort. She tried to tell him to slow down, but then, quote, "she allowed him to undress her." This is what the report says. The second woman says she woke to find him having sex with her. When she asked whether he was wearing a condom, he said no. Quote, "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV.'" He answered, "Of course not." Quote, "She couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

So, if you’re going to treat women as moral adults and if you’re going to take the issue of rape seriously, the person who’s engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, "I don’t want this." And again and again and again, these women did not say, "This is not consensual." Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints, because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation. Miss A kept Assange in her home for the next four days and threw a party for him.

So, because I take rape seriously, because I’m aware that in 23 years, you know, in Sweden, which has been criticized by Amnesty International for disregarding rape, for letting rapists go free, because you have a better chance in Sweden, if you’re a rape victim, of, you know, dying in an accident or getting breast cancer than having a serious rape allegation prosecuted or getting any kind of legal hearing, according to Amnesty International’s report "Case Closed"—it’s because of that that I know that these charges are utterly, utterly atypically handled. In 23 years, I’ve never seen any man in any situation this ambiguous, involving this much consent, have any kind of legal process whatsoever. And all over the world, women who have been gang-raped, brutally raped, raped in alleyways, pimped, prostituted, trafficked, you know, their rapists go free.

So, yes, this stinks to me. And yes, it’s about politics, and it’s about the same kind of politics that dragged you, when you were trying to cover a march, you know, violently into legal jeopardy, because really this is about a journalist who has angered the most powerful and increasingly brutal nation on earth, and it’s about all of us who are journalists being dragged into a dangerous situation because of criticism of the government.

AMY GOODMAN: Jaclyn Friedman, your response?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Wow. First of all, I’ve also been working with rape survivors for 20 years, and I am one myself. And I can assure you that you do not speak for me or many of us. I, too, have been speaking with rape survivors around the world since this case broke, who have been so hurt and disappointed that someone like you, who understands about the danger of perpetuating myths in the media, would be perpetuating rape myths that hurt all of us. There are so many rape survivors that are up in arms about the way this case has been discussed and the way these women have been disregarded.

NAOMI WOLF: But Jaclyn, Jaclyn, with all due respect—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I fully agree—no, no.

NAOMI WOLF:—where did they say no?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I did not interrupt you when you were speaking, and I would appreciate—

NAOMI WOLF: I beg your pardon.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:—if you don’t—I’m going get to that.

NAOMI WOLF: OK.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: OK. So, I fully agree with you that the zeal, shall we say, with which these charges are being pursued is politically motivated. We have no disagreement on that. That is not an issue here. We are in agreement about that. I bet Amy agrees with us, too.

But if you want to talk about what the women in Sweden want, you should look at their political actions. There is a massive Twitter campaign that the women of Sweden have launched called "Let’s Talk about It." I think that’s right. It’s translated from the Swedish, because they are all—

NAOMI WOLF: That’s fair. Let’s talk about it.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I’m talking about it right now. They are coming forward, and they’re saying these things aren’t taken seriously in Sweden, and this is an opportunity to prove that the Swedish government can take these issues seriously. This is an opportunity to set the international bar higher for the way we take seriously rape charges.

Now, let’s talk about those charges. Those women did not consent. If she was consenting, he had no need to hold her down. A woman in her sleep cannot consent to sex. Consent is not a light switch, OK?

NAOMI WOLF: I have to speak to this.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Just because you’ve consented to choose one sexual activity, say, taking your clothes off with someone, does not mean you’ve consented to all sexual activities.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Wolf?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That’s preposterous.

NAOMI WOLF: Yeah, I—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: If I go home with someone, it’s not consenting to every single thing that might be done to me by the person I’ve gone home with.

NAOMI WOLF: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: Jaclyn, let’s get Naomi Wolf’s—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Both women have clearly claimed that they did not consent.

AMY GOODMAN: We need to get—we only have a minute to go. We need to get Naomi’s response.

NAOMI WOLF: Jaclyn, of course I agree with you that consent isn’t a given and that obviously with every sexual act, everyone needs to be sure that everyone is consenting. There is no doubt about that. But I don’t know if you’ve actually read the Guardian report, because again and again and again—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I most absolutely have.

NAOMI WOLF: Alright. So, again and again and again, Assange consulted with the women about what they wanted, and they didn’t say no. And to me as a feminist—and this is why I’m hearing from so many rape victims around the world—and of course the issue needs to be discussed more, obviously, but the reason, as a feminist, I am distraught about this miscarriage of justice is that you can’t—you’re not respecting women by casting them as unable to assert what they want, unwilling, you know, to speak about what they wish. The women—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Women may be afraid.

NAOMI WOLF: Jaclyn—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: If she’s been held down by someone, she is afraid.

NAOMI WOLF: But wait, read—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: She’s in a state of fear.

NAOMI WOLF: Listen to me. Jaclyn—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: No is not enough. Every sexual person—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds.

NAOMI WOLF: OK.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:—has the responsibility to get affirmative consent from their sexual partner.

NAOMI WOLF: He then consulted with her—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Not just no, but affirmative yes.

NAOMI WOLF:—and asked her what she wanted, and she did not say no. She continued to have sex with him. And what I’m saying is—

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: She was afraid. He had held her down. She was in a state of fear. Many, many women—this happens over—you talk to rape survivors. I can’t believe you don’t know this. Many women are in a state of fear and unable—they’re in a panic situation. This is so common as to be laughable. And the reason they don’t take these seriously is because you tell them that.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds. We have 10 seconds. Naomi, you can respond.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I travel in the country and the world talking to rape survivors.

NAOMI WOLF: I mean, all I can say is if a man or a woman who’s engaging in a sexual act that they think is consensual never hears "no" and hears "yes, yes, yes—yes, let’s go ahead without a condom; yes, let’s go ahead"—that insults rape victims.

Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:12 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

Can someone teach Sage to use the quote function?

Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:47 am

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21654

the mean wrote: Can someone teach Sage to use the quote function?

I'm good when it's just one thing I want to quote. If there's more than one quote in the same post then I've got problems and I resort to quotation marks.